Commentary: how individual and profession-level factors influence discussion of disability in prenatal genetic counseling

Genetic Counseling, Professional Values, and Habitus: An Analysis of Disability Narratives in Textbooks

This article analyzes narrative illustrations in genetic counseling textbooks as a way of understanding professional habitus--the dispositions that motivate professional behavior. In particular, this analysis shows that there are significant differences in how the textbooks' expository and narrative portions represent Down syndrome, genetic counseling practice, and patient behaviors. While the narrative portions of the text position the genetic counseling profession as working in service to the values of genetic medicine, the expository portions represent genetic counselors as neutral parties. Ultimately, this article argues that this ambiguity is harmful to the production of a professional habitus that is consistent with espoused professional values concerning respect for persons with disabilities and the promotion of psychosocial counseling.

Characterizing Clinical Genetic Counselors' Countertransference Experiences: an Exploratory Study

Countertransference (CT) refers to conscious and unconscious emotions, fantasies, behaviors, perceptions, and psychological defenses genetic counselors experience in response to any aspect of genetic counseling situations (Weil 2010). Some authors theorize about the importance of recognizing and managing CT, but no studies solely aim to explore genetic counselors' experiences of the phenomenon. This study examined the extent to which clinical genetic counselors' perceive themselves as inclined to experience CT, gathered examples of CT encountered in clinical situations, and assessed their CT management strategies. An anonymous online survey, sent to NSGC members, yielded 127 usable responses. Participants completed Likert-type items rating their CT propensities; 57 of these individuals also provided examples of CT they experienced in their practice. Factor analysis of CT propensities tentatively suggested four factors: Control, Conflict Avoidance, Directiveness, and Self-Regulation, accounting for 38.5% of response variance. Thematic analysis of CT examples yielded five common triggers: general similarity to patient, medical/genetic similarity, angry patients, patient behaves differently from counselor expectations, and disclosing bad news; six common manifestations: being self-focused, projecting feelings onto the patient, intense emotional reaction to patient, being overly invested, disengagement, and physical reaction; five CT effects: disruption in rapport building, repaired empathy, over-identification, conversation does not reach fullest potential, and counselor is drained emotionally; and three management strategies: recognizing CT as it occurs, self-reflection, and consultation. Results suggest CT is a common experience, occurring in both "routine" and emotionally complex cases. Training programs, continuing education, and peer supervision might include discussion of CT, informed by examples from the present study, to increase genetic counselor awareness and skills for managing the phenomenon.

Attitudes of mothers of children with down syndrome towards noninvasive prenatal testing

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) allows for highly sensitive detection of Down syndrome early in pregnancy with no risk of miscarriage, therefore potentially increasing the number of pregnancies identified with Down syndrome. This study assesses how mothers of children with Down syndrome perceive NIPT, especially the impact they think it will have on their families and other families with children who have Down syndrome. Seventy-three self-reported mothers of children with Down syndrome responded to an anonymous online survey emailed to, and posted on, message boards of various Down syndrome support groups and networks. Data analysis included chi-square tests and thematic analysis. Fifty-nine percent of respondents indicated they would use NIPT in the future; respondents who had not used prenatal testing in the past were significantly less likely to report interest in using NIPT in the future than those who had prenatal testing previously (p < .001). Many respondents felt NIPT could lead to increased terminations (88 %), increased social stigma (57 %), and decreased availability of services for individuals with Down syndrome (64 %). However, only 16 % believed availability of new noninvasive tests would be the most important factor in determining the number of pregnancies with Down syndrome terminated in the future. Additionally, 48 % believed health care providers give biased or incorrect information about Down syndrome at the time of diagnosis, and 24 % felt this incorrect information leads to terminations of pregnancies affected with Down syndrome. Results suggest although mothers of children with Down syndrome believe new noninvasive testing will lead to an increase in termination of pregnancies with Down syndrome, they do not think it is the MOST important factor. They also highlight the need to provide a diagnosis of Down syndrome in a balanced and objective manner.

Disability training in the genetic counseling curricula: bridging the gap between genetic counselors and the disability community

Over the past two decades, disability activists, ethicists, and genetic counselors have examined the moral complexities inherent in prenatal genetic counseling and considered whether and in what ways genetic counseling may negatively affect individuals in the disability community. Many have expressed concerns about defining disability in the context of prenatal decision-making, as the definition presented may influence prenatal choices. In the past few years, publications have begun to explore the responsibility of counselors in presenting a balanced view of disability and have questioned the preparedness of counselors for this duty. Currently, the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC) only minimally includes disability training in their competencies for genetic counselors, and in their accreditation requirements for training programs. In an attempt to describe current practice, this article details two studies that assess disability training in ABGC-accredited genetic counseling programs. Results from these studies demonstrate that experience with disability is not required by the majority of programs prior to matriculation. Though most program directors agree on the importance of including disability training in the curriculum, there is wide variability in the amount and types of training students receive. Hours dedicated to disability exposure among programs ranged from 10 to 600 hours. Eighty-five percent of program directors surveyed agree that skills for addressing disability should be added to the core competencies. Establishing a set of disability competencies would help to ensure that all graduates have the skills necessary to provide patients with an accurate understanding of disability that facilitates informed decision-making.